Jaswant Singh v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 1178
An Indian family's refugee claim was refused due to an available internal flight alternative. Their subsequent application for permanent residence on Humanitarian & Compassionate (H&C) grounds was also rejected, with the officer concluding their establishment in Canada and potential hardships in India were insufficient to warrant an exemption.
The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding the officer's decision to be reasonable. The Court affirmed that an H&C assessment is not a simple comparison of living standards and that the officer had properly weighed all relevant factors, including the best interests of the children.
BALDEEP SINGH v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 1168
The applicant, Baldeep Singh, sought judicial review of a decision refusing his work permit for a position at a Tim Hortons. The visa officer was not satisfied that he would leave Canada at the end of his temporary stay, citing weak economic ties to India and unclear current employment.
The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding the officer's decision to be reasonable. The Court affirmed that an officer can refuse a work permit based on insufficient evidence of economic establishment in the applicant's home country.
Min Thant v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 1163
The applicant sought judicial review of a refused early work permit under the Start-Up Visa (SUV) Program. The officer was not satisfied that the applicant, whose proposed business was a digital travel website, had a genuine need for an immediate physical presence in Canada.
The Federal Court dismissed the application, finding the officer's decision was reasonable. The Court affirmed that for digital-based businesses, generalized reasons like market research or incubation program attendance may not be enough to justify the urgency of an early work permit.
Grewal v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 1159
A 72-year-old widow from India applied for permanent residence from within Canada on Humanitarian and Compassionate (H&C) grounds, citing her establishment with her children and grandchildren. The immigration officer refused the application, finding she failed to demonstrate sufficient establishment, hardship upon return, or a significant negative impact on her grandchildren.
The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding the officer's decision was reasonable. The Court affirmed that an H&C application cannot succeed based on uncorroborated assertions in a representative's letter; the onus is on the applicant to provide objective evidence to support their claims.
Ferreira v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 1160
The applicant, a victim of spousal abuse by her Canadian husband, lost her spousal sponsorship pathway. An officer refused her subsequent Humanitarian and Compassionate (H&C) application, reasoning she had escaped the abuse and had stronger ties to Brazil.
The Federal Court granted the judicial review, finding the officer's decision unreasonable. The Court ruled that when an applicant loses their spousal sponsorship due to escaping an abusive relationship, that loss of an immigration pathway must be treated as a central factor in the H&C assessment.
Bent v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 1161
A permanent resident facing an inadmissibility hearing for serious criminality submitted substantial evidence, including an Enhanced Pre-Sentencing Report, arguing that systemic anti-Black racism was a key factor in his circumstances. The Minister’s Delegate dismissed this evidence in a single sentence, finding it irrelevant to his specific case.
The Federal Court found the Minister's Delegate's decision unreasonable. The Court held that once a decision-maker agrees to consider personal circumstances, they must meaningfully engage with the evidence provided and offer a transparent, justified rationale, which did not happen here.
Mohammad Umair Nazia v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 1157
An entrepreneur from Pakistan applied for a work permit under the International Mobility Program to establish a business in Ontario. The immigration officer refused the application, finding the applicant failed to provide sufficient supporting evidence for his work experience, financial capacity, and ability to perform the proposed work.
The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review, upholding the officer's decision as reasonable and procedurally fair. The Court affirmed the principle that immigration officers are not obligated to warn applicants about the insufficiency of their evidence or request additional documents.
Singh v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 1147
An Indian citizen applied for a work permit and was refused on two grounds: that he could not perform the proposed work and that he had insufficient ties to India to ensure he would leave Canada after his stay.
The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review. Although the Court found the officer's first reason for refusal (inability to perform the work) was unreasonable, it held that the second reason (insufficient ties to India) was reasonable and sufficient on its own to justify the refusal.
Towsif v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 1137
The applicant, a citizen of Bangladesh, applied for a work permit as a Cook (NOC 63200). The immigration officer refused the application, finding the applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence that he could perform all the required job duties, particularly managerial tasks like inventory control and staff supervision.
The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review, upholding the officer's decision as reasonable. The Court found that the applicant's evidence did not sufficiently demonstrate experience in all aspects of the NOC description, placing the burden of proof squarely on the applicant.
Kumar v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 1138
The applicant, an Indian citizen, was refused a visitor visa to see her sister in Canada. The immigration officer was not satisfied with her financial situation or her ties to her home country, concluding she might not leave Canada.
The Federal Court granted the judicial review, finding the officer's decision unreasonable. The Court ruled that the officer failed to meaningfully engage with or analyze the significant evidence provided by the applicant, which directly contradicted the reasons for refusal.
